Delhi District Court
State(Bses) vs Mirza Amaan Beg on 13 February, 2025
SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHISH RASTOGI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 05
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
SC No. 351/2023
FIR No. 729/2022
Under Section 135/150 Electricity Act
PS Jafrabad
State
versus
1. Mirza Amaan Beg
S/o Sh. Mirza Ashfaq Beg
R/o H.No.C-184/9A, 1st Floor,
Gali No.2, Chauhan Banger, Delhi
.... Accused
Date of institution 19.05.2023
Judgment reserved on 13.02.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 13.02.2024
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Mirza Amaan Beg is facing trial upon the allegations that he indulged in theft of electricity and thereby, committed an offence punishable U/s 135 of Electricity Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Digitally signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.02.13 16:17:28 +0530 Judgment 1 of 20 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr Brief Facts
2. On 20.05.2022, at about 11.20 am, an inspection was conducted by the inspection team of BSES Yamuna Power Limited (hereinafter referred as complainant company) headed by PW2 Sh. R.B. Yadav (Assistant Manager) in the residential premises of accused at House No.C-184/9A, First Floor, Gali No.2, Chauhan Banger, Delhi-110053.
3. At the time of inspection, no electricity meter was found installed at the inspected premises and one person namely Mohd. Wasi stated to be found at the spot, who claimed himself to be tenant of accused Mirza Amaan Beg. The user i.e. tenant/co-accused Mohd. Wasi (since not arrested) was found indulged in direct theft of electricity with the help of single core yellow colour cable further joined with black colour cables which were found connected from BSRS Pole No.YVR-Y-962.
4. On being disconnected illegal wires through which theft of electricity was being done, the supply of inspected premises went off. At the time of inspection, head massage machines assembling work was going on. Illegal wires were removed and seized at the spot.
5. At the time of inspection, total connected load running on direct theft was found to be 1.050 KW which was being used for non-domestic purposes i.e. head massage machines assembling work. Videography of the connected Digitally load was recorded by the videographer. Inspection signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.02.13 Judgment16:17:38 2 of 20 +0530 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr documents i.e. Inspection Report, Load Report, Seizure Memo and Advisory Notice were prepared at the spot.
6. On the basis of connected load, applicable tariff and following the guidelines of DERC, the complainant company assessed the demand to the tune of Rs.76,983/- Accordingly, a theft bill was raised and sent to the accused but he did not make payment of the theft bill.
7. On failure to pay the theft bill amount, complainant company through its Authorized Officer lodged a complaint U/s 135 Electricity Act with SHO, PS Jafrabad for registration of FIR against the tenant/user Mohd. Wasi and owner of the inspected premises i.e. accused Mirza Aman Begu U/s 135 & 150 of the Electricity Act.
8. On the said complaint, present FIR was registered U/s 135/150 of Electricity Act and investigation was marked to HC Kavindra. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Mirza Amaan Beg was owner of the inspected premises at the time of inspection while Mohd. Wasi was stated to be tenant/user of electricity in the inspected premises. Accordingly, accused Mirza Amaan Beg being owner of the inspected premises was chargesheeted in this case while Mohd. Wasi has been kept in column no.12 of the chargesheet as he could not be traced out. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons U/s 135/150 of Electricity Act. Digitally signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.02.13 16:17:55 +0530 Judgment 3 of 20 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr Notice
9. Though, the chargesheet has been filed U/s 135 r/w section 150 of the Act against the accused Mirza Amaan Beg for abetment. However, no rent agreement, rent receipt etc has been placed on record by the IO so as to ascertain that said Mohd. Wasi was tenant/user of the electricity. In addition, the residential address of the accused Mirza Amaan Beg is same as of inspected premises. Furthermore, as per record, one electricity bill No.100724115425 dated 01.04.2019 is on record as per which one electricity meter was in the name of accused Mirza Amaan Beg installed in the inspected premises but same was got disconnected. The said electricity bill also bears the same address. Thus, it could not be established that Mohd. Wasi was user/tenant in the inspected premises at the time of inspection.
Accordingly, notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C for commission of offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act was given to accused Mirza Amaan Beg on 03.05.2024. He did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
10.In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined following three witnesses.
11. PW1 HC Kavindra is the IO of the case, who proved endorsement as Ex.PW1/A, copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/B, site plan as Ex.PW1/C, notice U/s 41A Cr.P.C. given to Digitally signed by accused as Ex.PW1/D and notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C given to Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
Judgment 2025.02.13 16:18:01 +0530 4 of 20 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr accused as Ex.PW1/E. He also proved reply to the said notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C as Ex.PW1/F. He also proved interrogation report as Ex.PW1/G and copy of Adhar Card of the accused as well as copy of ownership document of the inspected premises as Ex.PW1/H colly. He also proved the Pabandinama Ex.PW1/I.
12. PW2 Sh. R.B. Yadav is Team Leader/complainant who was heading the inspection team. He proved CD of videography of the inspection proceedings as Ex.PW2/A, inspection report as Ex.PW2/B, load report as Ex.PW2/C, seizure memo as Ex.PW2/D, advisory notice given to accused as Ex.PW2/E and theft bill as Ex.PW2/F. He also proved the complaint as Ex.PW2/G. PW2 also identified the case property i.e. two black colour wires having length of one meter each through which theft of electricity was being committed as Ex.P1 colly.
13. PW3 Sh. Mohsin is the videographer who, on the instruction of team leader Sh. R.B. Yadav, captured videography of the inspection proceedings. He proved the video contained in the CD as Ex.PW2/A and Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW3/A. Statement of Accused
14.All incriminating evidence which has come on record, were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all material allegations and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He Digitally signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
Judgment 2025.02.13 16:18:07 5 of 20 +0530 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr has not committed any theft of electricity. However, accused did not lead any Defence Evidence.
Arguments
15.Ld. Addl. Substitute Addl. PP submitted that accused Mirza Amaan Beg was user/owner of the inspected premises. It is also argued that no electricity meter was found installed in the inspected premises and user/accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity. Ld. Addl. PP further submitted that prosecution has proved allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He also emphasized that inspection was conducted as per Rules and applicable Regulations. Thus, it is prayed that accused may be convicted.
16.On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that accused Mirza Amaan Beg is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It submitted that accused has not committed any theft. It is also submitted that during pendency of trial, accused Mirza Amaan Beg has settled civil liability qua impugned theft bill and NOC has also been issued to accused.
Analysis
17.Before dealing with the factual aspects of the present case, it is deemed appropriate to firstly specify and discuss the relevant provisions of the Act which are required to be gone into for appropriate disposal of the case. The present Ashish Rastogi Judgment 6 of 20 Digitally signed by Ashish Rastogi Date: 2025.02.13 16:18:29 +0530 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr case pertains to Section 135 of the Act. The provision of Section 135 of the Electricity Act is reproduced as under:
Section 135 Theft of electricity - (1) Whoever, dishonestly, (a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier as the case may be; or
(b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or
(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity, or
(d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or
(e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both:
18. There is a presumption mentioned in the third proviso of Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 which reads as follows:-
"Provided also that if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorised by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer.
19.Dishonest intention has not been defined in Electricity Act.
Section 24 IPC defines 'dishonestly' and holds that Whoever does anything with the intention of causing Digitally signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
Judgment 16:18:35 2025.02.13 7 of 20 +0530 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly".
20.As per prosecution case, at the time of inspection, no electricity meter was found installed at the inspected premises and the user/owner was found indulged in direct theft of electricity. On being disconnected illegal wires, the supply of inspected premises went off. At the time of inspection, head massage machines assembling work was going on. Thus, the onus was on the prosecution to prove these allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
21. Under Electricity Act' Regulations are framed by the Delhi Electricity Regularity Commission. Regulation 60 to 63 deals with theft of electricity. Regulation 60 empowers authorized Officer to inspect premises. Under Regulation 61 Authorized Officer makes an Inspection Report, Regulation 62 lays down procedure ti report a case of theft and then under Regulation 63 there is assessment of theft bill.
22. Regulations 60-63 of DERC are as under:-
Theft of Electricity under Section 135 of the Act 60. Inspections of the premises and electrical installations by Authorized officer: -
(1) The Authorized officer shall promptly conduct inspection of any premises either suo-moto or on receipt of information regarding theft of electricity:
Provided that the Authorized officer may avail the Digitally signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.02.13 16:18:41 Judgment +0530 8 of 20 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr assistance of employees of the Licensee for conducting inspection.
(2) The Authorized officer shall carry his visiting card bearing his photograph and photo identity card issued under Regulation 55(3).
(3) Photo ID shall be shown and visiting card bearing his photograph shall be handed over to the consumer or the occupier of the premises before entering the premises and take the acknowledgment.
(4) The Authorized officer shall prepare an inspection report as per the provisions under these Regulations.
61. Preparation of Report by Authorized officer: - (1) In the event of detection of theft of electricity, the Authorized officer shall prepare a detailed Report at site, in the manner as prescribed in the Commission's Orders.
(2) All the material evidences such as tampered meter, tampered meter seal and artificial means used for illegal abstraction of energy and the documentary evidences etc., which are relevant to the case and found during the inspection, shall be seized under a seizure memo and sealed in the presence of the consumer or his authorized representative and be kept as a proof along with photography and video recording of the premises.
(3) A detailed description of the material seized, including date, time and place and name & address of witnesses to the seizure shall be recorded on the exterior of the cover and signatures of all witnesses shall be affixed on the sealing points: Provided that if the witness refuses to sign, the same shall be recorded in the report and captured in the videography.
(4) The inspection Report shall be signed by the Authorized officer and a copy of the same shall be handed over to the consumer or his representative at the site immediately under proper acknowledgement. The other persons present at site may also sign the inspection report.
(5) If consumer or his representative at site refuses to acknowledge and accept the copy of the report, a copy of the Digitally Ashishreport shall be pasted at a conspicuous place in or outside the signed by Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.02.13 16:18:47 Judgment +0530 9 of 20 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr premises and photographed and/or video recorded. Another copy of the same report shall be sent to the consumer under Registered Post or Speed Post or electronically on the same day or on the next day of the inspection.
(6) The inspection report shall form the basis for further action as per the provisions contained in Regulations.
62. Procedure for prosecution for Theft of Electricity: -
(1) The prosecution for theft of electricity under section 135 of the Act shall be initiated only in the cases where dishonest intention is evident from the relevant facts, records and other evidence of the case.
(2) In case sufficient evidence is found to establish theft of electricity, the Authorized officer under sub-section (2) of Section 135 of the Act shall seize and seal all material evidence including wires/cables, meter, service line etc., from the premises under a seizure Memo.
(3) The supply of the consumer shall be disconnected immediately on detection of theft only by such officer of the Licensee or supplier as authorised for the purpose by the Commission, under sub-section (1A) of Section 135 of the Act: Provided that such officer shall lodge a complaint in writing in Police Station having jurisdiction over the site of occurrence of the offence within twenty-four hours from time of such disconnection: Provided further that such officer shall also send to the consumer a copy of complaint lodged in Police Station, copy of speaking order under Regulation 64 along with a copy of videography of inspection within 2 (two) days of such disconnection.
(4) No case for theft shall be booked only on account of missing of the seals on the meter or on account of breakage of glass window of the meter, unless dishonest intention is corroborated by consumption pattern of consumer or any other evidence.
(5) Interference with the accurate registration of energy consumed by resorting to external methods involving remote control, high voltage injection etc., committed by the consumer or his employee or any other person acting on his behalf, shall also constitute theft of electricity which may be established by analysis of metering data and by testing of the meter in an Digitally signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Judgment Rastogi Date:
2025.02.13 10 of 20 16:18:52 +0530 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr accredited laboratory notified by the Commission or by the agency authorized by the Commission in this regard.
63. Assessment Bill for theft of electricity: -
(1) The Assessing officer shall assess the energy for theft of electricity as notified in the Appendix I to the Regulations.
(2) The period of assessment for theft of electricity shall be for a period of 12 (twelve) months preceding the date of detection of theft of electricity or the exact period of theft if determined, whichever is less: Provided further that period of theft of electricity shall be assessed based on the following factors: -
(i) actual period from the date of commencement of supply to the date of inspection;
(ii) actual period from the date of replacement of component of metering system in which the evidence is detected to the date of inspection;
(iii) actual period from the date of preceding checking of installation by authorized officer to date of inspection;
(iv) data recorded in the energy meter memory wherever available.
(v) based on the document being relied upon by the accused person.
(3) The assessment bill shall be prepared on two times the rate as per applicable tariff.
(4) While making the assessment bill, the Licensee shall give credit to the consumer for the electricity units already paid by the consumer for the period of the assessment bill.
(5) The assessment order shall be served upon the consumer or the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises, as the case may be, within 7 (seven) days of disconnection of supply or within 2 (two) days from the date of receipt of request of such person, whichever is earlier.
23. PW2 Sh. R.B. Yadav (Assistant Manager) and PW3 Sh.
Mohsin (Videographer) are prime witnesses of this case being members of inspection team. PW2 corroborated the allegations made in the complaint ( Ex.PW2/G) and Digitally signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Judgment 11 of 20 Rastogi Date:
2025.02.13 16:18:57 +0530 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr deposed that during inspection, no electricity meter was found in the inspected premises and the accused/user was found indulged in direct theft of electricity. Accused has not specifically rebutted these facts during cross- examination of PW2.
24. PW2 further deposed that at the time of inspection, total connected load was found to be 1.050 KW which was being used for non-domestic purposes i.e. head massage machine assembling work. He further deposed that the necessary videography of the inspection proceedings was captured by videographer Sh. Mohsin. PW2 also deposed that the illegal wires were removed by the lineman and same were seized at the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D. Accused has not specifically controverted/rebutted these facts in the cross-examination of PW2.
25. PW3/videographer Mohsin conducted the videography of the Inspection Proceedings in which the commission of theft of electricity at the inspected premises was recorded. PW2 & PW3 were duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused was unable to bring out any contradiction in their testimony. Accused has not specifically disputed the factum of inspection. Ld. Counsel for accused has simply put suggestion that no wire was connected from the network of BSES at the time of inspection; case property is planted one; inspection documents were not prepared at the time of inspection, which facts have been denied by Ashish Rastogi Judgment Digitally signed 12 of 20 by Ashish Rastogi Date: 2025.02.13 16:19:03 +0530 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr PW2. Accused has not disputed that at the time of inspection head massage machine assembling work as stated by PW2 was found going on at the time of inspection in the inspected premises. Accused has also not disputed the load mentioned in the load report.
26. As per load report, certain electrical appliances were found installed at the inspected premises. In the load report, calculation of the load has been mentioned and accused has not disputed the calculation of the load as mentioned in the load report. Accused has not rendered any alternative explanation. Accused Mirza Aman Beg is admittedly the owner of the inspected premises. Although, accused Mirza Aman Beg stated to be not present at the site at the time of inspection, it is not disputed at all that the load of the inspected premises was running with direct theft of electricity. Moreover, presence or absence of accused at the time of inspection from the spot does not absolve him from the liability of the alleged offence because commission of theft of electricity can be done even in absence of accused and it is admitted fact that there was no electricity in the inspected premises. It is not the case of the accused that load of the booked floor i.e. First Floor was running through authorized electricity meter at the inspected premises.
27. Nothing contradictory emerged in the testimony of prosecution witnesses during cross-examination and the testimony of witnesses has been consistent and thus, the Digitally signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Judgment 13 of 20 Date:
2025.02.13 16:19:12 +0530 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr factum of inspection, preparation of documents as well as head massage assembling work being done with the help of direct theft of electricity at the spot and videography of inspection proceedings done by videographer stands proved.
28.It is submitted on behalf of accused that prosecution case is highly doubtful as no public witness was joined during the inspection of the premises. It is clear from the aforesaid discussions that the accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires and these facts have been well proved by PW2 & PW3.
29. During evidence, CD (Ex.PW2/A) containing inspection proceedings was played before the court which depicted the manner in which the user was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wire. Accused has not disputed the identity of the inspected premises shown in the video contained in the CD. Furthermore, it is not disputed at all by the accused that head massage machine assembling work was being done at the first floor and the said assembling work was running directly with the help of illegal wires.
30. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that officials of complainant company had any animosity with the accused and therefore, under these circumstances, non- joining of public witness does not affect the authenticity of the prosecution case. In this regard, this Court is supported Digitally signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.02.13 Judgment 16:19:20 +0530 14 of 20 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr with the case law reported as 'Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors vs Ashwani Kumar, 2010 (7) SCC 569'. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:
".....The report prepared by the officers of the Electricity Board is an act done in discharge of their duties and could not be straightway reflected or disbelieved unless and until there was definite and cogent material on record to arrive at such a finding. The inspection report is a document prepared in exercise of his official duty by the officers of the corporation. Once an act is done in accordance with law, the presumption is in favour of such act or document and not against the same. Thus there was specific onus upon the consumer to rebut by leading proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared by the officers was not correct."
31. In the case titled as ' Sushil Sharma vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.' in Crl. Appeal No.1060/10 decided on 22.12.2010, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that non- examination of independent/public witness is no infirmity as the members of the inspection team who deposed in the court, were having no enmity against the appellant and their testimonies are trustworthy. In the present case also, there is no material to show that the BSES officials who inspected the premises of the accused were inimical to the accused.
32. In addition, nothing has come on record to show that the inspection was not conducted as per the procedure prescribed under the DERC Regulations pertaining to the theft of electricity. There is not even a suggestion in the cross examination of witnesses that there is any procedural Digitally signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.02.13 Judgment 15 of 20 16:19:26 +0530 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr lapse or impropriety and the guidelines as prescribed have not been followed.
33.Once the prosecution successfully establishes the charges against the accused regarding theft of electricity then in view of the statutory presumption mentioned in the third proviso of section 135 (1) of the Act it is to be presumed that accused has committed direct theft of electricity if accused fails to bring some evidence on record to rebut the presumption. Thus, in view of the proviso of section 135 (1) of the Act, after the prosecution establishes the charges of electricity theft against the accused then under the aforesaid provisions of law, the accused is legally bound to bring some material on record to rebut the statutory presumption.
34. Coming to the Presumption as envisaged U/s 135 of Electricity Act, it is to be noted that it uses the word "shall presume". Regarding the purport of the said expression, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutt Vs. State, SLP(Crl.) No. 6497/2020 as under: -
".........Courts are authorized to draw a particular inference from a particular fact, unless and until the truth of such inference is disproved by other facts. The court can, under Section 4 of the Evidence Act, raise a presumption for purposes of proof of a fact. It is well settled that a presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists. As per English Law, there are three categories of presumptions, namely, (i) presumptions of fact or natural presumption; (ii) presumption of law (rebuttable and irrebuttable); and (iii) mixed presumptions i.e., "presumptions of mixed law and fact"
or "presumptions of fact recognized by law". The Digitally signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.02.13 Judgment 16:19:31 +0530 16 of 20 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr expression "may presume" and "shall presume" in Section 4 of the Evidence Act are also categories of presumptions. Factual presumptions or discretionary presumptions come under the division of "may presume" while legal presumptions or compulsory presumptions come under the division of "shall presume".
"May presume" leaves it to the discretion of the court to make the presumption according to the circumstances of the case but "shall presume" leaves no option with the court, and it is bound to presume the fact as proved until evidence is given to disprove it, for instance, the genuineness of a document purporting to be the Gazette of India. The expression "shall presume" is found in Sections 79, 80, 81, 83, 85, 89 and 105 of the Evidence Act."
35. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case reported as '2001 (6) SCC 16 titled as Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee ', has laid down the law related to the rebuttal of statutory presumption. Relevant portion of the para no.16 is reproduced as under:-
"...Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard or reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'."
36. In view of the settled law, now it is to be seen if the accused has taken any defence to rebut the aforesaid statutory presumption. Accused did not lead any defence evidence nor he has brought anything on record which could suggest that he was drawing electricity through authorized means or electricity meter. Moreover, it is admitted position of fact that there was no electricity meter in the inspected premises and head massage machine assembling work was being done with the direct theft of Digitally Judgment signed by Ashish 17 of 20 Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.02.13 16:19:38 +0530 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr electricity. As per load report, certain electric appliances were found in the inspected premises and accused has not explained as to from where electricity was being drawn to run those appliances. Also, it is not the case of the accused that there was any Genset and he was drawing energy from the same.
37. Furthermore, it is clear from the evidence of PW2 that in regard to the electricity theft, the complainant company had raised a bill of Rs.76,983/- (Ex.PW2/F) against the accused and during the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that that accused has settled the matter qua civil liability and also deposited the settlement amount and NOC has also been issued. In case, the officials of the complainant company would not have carried out the inspection as deposed by prosecution witnesses and complainant company would have raised a false and baseless claim by way of theft bill (Ex.PW2/F), then instead of going for settlement, accused would have raised his protest and would have initiated appropriate proceedings against complainant company for raising a false claim against him. This conduct of the accused also fortifies the allegations of the direct theft of electricity against him.
38. Further in the advisory notice proved as Ex.PW2/E, it is clearly mentioned that in case the accused/user has anything to say against the inspection, he should have filed Digitally signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
2025.02.13 Judgment 18 of 20 16:19:43 +0530 SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr written objection thereto within four working days but the user/accused chose not to file any objection which indicates the involvement of the accused in direct theft of electricity else he would have raised his objection before the competent authority.
39.Notwithstanding, if the accused was not indulged in direct theft of electricity or he was using the electricity through legal sources then the easiest way to rebut the statutory presumption for the accused was to prove on record that at the time of inspection, he was drawing electricity through his own electricity meter. However, accused has not brought anything on record to disprove the allegations brought on record by the prosecution. In view of these discussions, it is held that accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumption.
40. In this regard, this court is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reported as Mukesh Rastogi vs North Delhi Power Limited' 2007 (99) DRJ108. The observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi are reproduced as under:-
"....6. The contention of the appellant is that electricity supply was going through meter. Had the electricity been going to the appellant's premises through meter, the easiest way to prove it was by producing the electricity bills paid by the appellant to the complainant company. The very fact that the appellant did not prove a single bill showing payment of electricity charges fortifies the plea of the complainant company that electricity was being used by the appellant directly from LT Main by Digitally signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
Judgment 2025.02.13
16:19:49
+0530
19 of 20
SC No.351/2023 State Vs. Mirza Amaan Beg & Anr
committing theft. Paid electricity bills would have been the best evidence to show that the appellant was using electricity through mere. Under section 106 of the Evidence Act, the onus was on the appellant to produce and prove such bills paid for the use of electricity. However, this was not even the case of the appellant either before trial court or in appeal that he had been using electricity through meter and had been paying bills of electricity as per meter. The appellant had only taken the stand that inspection was not valid inspection and the photographs were not proved properly".
41. In view of aforesaid discussions, it is held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that no electricity meter was available at the premises of the accused at the time of inspection and accused Mirza Amaan Beg who was found indulging in direct theft of electricity through illegal wire, which is an offence punishable U/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Consequently, accused Mirza Amaan Beg is convicted U/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Let convict be heard on quantum of sentence. Announced in the Open Court on 13.02.2025.
Digitally (Ashish Rastogi) Addl. Sessions Judge-05 (Electricity) signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi Rastogi Date:
East/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi 2025.02.13 16:19:55 +0530 Judgment 20 of 20